CIT v. Norton Motors

275 ITR 595High Court2005#1583 most cited

What is CIT v. Norton Motors authority for?

Section 292B of the Income-tax Act applies only to technical defects and omissions, not to fundamental errors that vitiate the assessment itself. A reassessment notice, such as one issued under Section 148, if addressed to an incorrect person or in the wrong name, is a jurisdictional defect that invalidates the entire assessment and cannot be cured by Section 292B.

71

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Norton Motors · Section 292B · Section 148 notice · incorrect person · wrong name · jurisdictional defect · reassessment invalid · technical defect · substantive error · vitiated assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 10(38)Section 124Section 132Section 132(4)Section 132A

Issues it is cited on

section 245c(1)section 23(4)section 147(1)section 142(3)section 4(1)cost plus methodsection 193section 196section 245csection 127(2)section 124(3)section 271aaa

Judgments citing CIT v. Norton Motors

Nahar Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) Cen RG 7, Mumbai

ITA 2855/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Sarvshree Vimal Punmiya, KetanFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “जी” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री सी. एन.प्रसाद, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA NO.2853 to 2855/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2012-13) M/s Nahar Enterprises, Dy. Commissioner of Income B-1 Mahalaxmi Chambers, Tax (OSD-1) Central Range-7, फनधभ/ 22,Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai Vs. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400026 ITA NO.3572 to 3574/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner of Income M/s Nahar Enterprises, T…

Nahar Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) Cen RG 7, Mumbai

ITA 2854/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Sarvshree Vimal Punmiya, KetanFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “जी” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री सी. एन.प्रसाद, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA NO.2853 to 2855/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2012-13) M/s Nahar Enterprises, Dy. Commissioner of Income B-1 Mahalaxmi Chambers, Tax (OSD-1) Central Range-7, फनधभ/ 22,Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai Vs. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400026 ITA NO.3572 to 3574/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner of Income M/s Nahar Enterprises, T…

Nahar Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) Cen RG 7, Mumbai

ITA 2853/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Sarvshree Vimal Punmiya, KetanFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “जी” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री सी. एन.प्रसाद, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA NO.2853 to 2855/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2012-13) M/s Nahar Enterprises, Dy. Commissioner of Income B-1 Mahalaxmi Chambers, Tax (OSD-1) Central Range-7, फनधभ/ 22,Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai Vs. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400026 ITA NO.3572 to 3574/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner of Income M/s Nahar Enterprises, T…

DCIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai vs. Pba Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by assessee is allowed and appeal by revenue is dismissed

ITA 7237/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhdcit, Central Circle- 36, M/S Pba Infrastructure Ltd. Room No. 11, Aayakar Bhavan, 611/3, Prakash, V.N. Purav Marg, Vs. M.K. Marg, M. K. Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaacp7564K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Pba Infrastructure Ltd. Asst. Cit, Central Circle- 36, 611/3, Prakash, V.N. Purav Marg, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Chembur, Mumbai-400071. M.K. Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaacp7564K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Sh. Samuel Derse (CIT-DR)
Section 11Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 292BSection 69CSection 80I

…e assessee. 7 ITA Nos. 7237 & 6587/M/2012- M/s PBA Infrastructure Ltd. The ld CIT(A) tried to rectify the mistake during the first appellate stage by invoking section 292B of the Act. The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT vs Norton Motors (2005) 275 ITR 595 (Pun) held: “That there is nothing in the plain language of that section (292B) from which it can be inferred that the same can be relied upon for curing the jurisdictional defect in the assessment notice, summons or other proceeding taken by an authority suffer from an inherent lacuna affecting his/ it’s jurisdiction, the same cannot be cured b…

Orbit Corporation Ltd ( Formerly M/S. Orbit Buildcon & Realty P.Ltd Since Merged With M/S, Orbit Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2411/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2016AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra Sindhu, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…n a non-exist person ie Dimension Apparel Pvt Ltd (supra) is not a curable defect u/s 292B of the Act as it constitutes a jurisdictional defect. For this proposition, the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Narton Motor (275 ITR 595) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Express Newspapers (1960) 40 ITR 38 (Mad) were relied. In the case of Express News Papers (supra), the assessments were made long after Free Press Company was stick off from the register of companies and the assessments cannot be valid. In this regard, Ld Counsel for the a…

Gestetner (India) Limited (Since Merged With Ricoh India Ltd.), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed and that of assessee are allowed

ITA 275/KOL/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Mrs. Sushmita Basu, CA & Sh. Amit Patra, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Sucheta Bandyopadhyay, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 481

…n of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceedings is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act." 13. The Punjab & Haryana High Court stated the effect of this provision in CIT Vs. Norton Motors, 275 ITR 595 in the following manner:- "A reading of the above reproduced provision makes it clear that a mistake, defect or omission in the return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding is not sufficient to invalidate an action taken by the competent authority, provided that such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other pro…

DCIT, Circle - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S. Gestetner (India) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed and that of assessee are allowed

ITA 148/KOL/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Mrs. Sushmita Basu, CA & Sh. Amit Patra, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Sucheta Bandyopadhyay, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 481

…n of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceedings is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act." 13. The Punjab & Haryana High Court stated the effect of this provision in CIT Vs. Norton Motors, 275 ITR 595 in the following manner:- "A reading of the above reproduced provision makes it clear that a mistake, defect or omission in the return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding is not sufficient to invalidate an action taken by the competent authority, provided that such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other pro…

Emerald Company Ltd, Kolkata vs. The ITO, WD-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 428/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri P.R Kothari, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Srivastava, ld.CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 292B

…rovisions of Section 292B of the Act." (Emphasis Supplied) 21. In Spice Entertainment Ltd. (supra) the reason for the inapplicability of Section 292-8 was additionally premised on the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Norton Motor, [2005] 275 ITR 595/146 Taxman 701, that while Section 2928 can cure technical defects, it cannot cure a "jurisdictional defect in the assessment notice. "ln Spice Entertainment Ltd. (supra), therefore, this Court expressly classified "the framing of assessment against a non-existing entity/person" as a jurisdictional defect. This has been a consistent position. As…

Commissioner of Income Tax –II vs. M/S Micron Steels Pvt. Ltd

ITA/19/2014HC Delhi11 Feb 2015
Section 170Section 391

…ngs is in 2015:DHC:1375-DB ITA Nos. 19-24/2014 Page 7 substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act.” 13. The Punjab & Haryana High Court stated the effect of this provision in CIT Vs. Norton Motors, 275 ITR 595 in the following manner:- “A reading of the above reproduced provision makes it clear that a mistake, defect or omission in the return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding is not sufficient to invalidate an action taken by the competent authority, provided that such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or o…

Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/7/2006HC Delhi08 Feb 2012
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…mpany was signed by someone other than the authorized person. It was observed that the question was of removal of defect, which could be rectified. Reference was made to another decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Norton Motors [2005] 275 ITR 595. 44. Bombay High Court in Prime Securities Ltd. Vs. Varinder Mehta, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (2009) 317 ITR 27 (Bom) has observed that Section 292B of the Act makes it clear that a return of income shall not be treated as invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission, if 2012:DHC:871-DB ITA Nos. 7/2006 + connec…

Spice Enfotainment Ltd

ITA - 475 / 2011HC Delhi03 Aug 2011
Section 143Section 292B

…ome, assessment, notice, summons or other proceedings is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act.” 13. The Punjab & Haryana High Court stated the effect of this provision in CIT Vs. Norton Motors, 275 ITR 595 in the following manner:- “A reading of the above reproduced provision makes it clear that a mistake, defect or omission in the return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding is not sufficient to invalidate an action taken by the competent authority, provided that such return of income, assessment, notice, summons…